WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said on Wednesday he plans to retire after three decades as a pivotal vote on the highest U.S. judicial body, giving President Donald Trump an opportunity to make the court more firmly conservative.

The conservative Kennedy, who turns 82 in July and is the second-oldest justice on the nine-member court, has become one of the most consequential American jurists since joining the court in 1988 as an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. He proved instrumental in advancing gay rights, buttressing abortion rights and erasing political spending limits. His retirement takes effect on July 31, the court said.

With the huge news that Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump announced that he will be choosing a new nominee “shortly,” and will be using the previously published list of names from which to draw that pick.

Here are the names the White House made public late last year.

Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida

Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator

Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa

Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

We'll vote these pigs out in November, and the rest will be in prison. Just wait.

Yes, but he'll put someone in before November.

We are going to be screwed with his choice. FFS how much more can we take?

We have got to find a way to block any of his nominations. Mitch McConnell the evil fucking turtle spewed lies about blocking Obama's nomination, we've got to find a way to play as dirty and as illegally as these monstrous republicans have. Voting them out and putting the criminals in prison will be a start.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson

And honestly, the Supreme Court is always one of my biggest concerns when picking a candidate to vote for, as these judges are there for decades. America as we knew it is dead

That’s what they want us to believe. Don’t give up just yet.

We'll vote these pigs out in November, and the rest will be in prison. Just wait.

Trump is trying hard to bring back the sinful and hateful days of America. He's going to appoint someone that would help to destroy Roe vs Wade. That happens, he will for sure be voted out in the next election, along with many repubs. Women are not going to sit down and allow their rights to be stolen.

We'll vote these pigs out in November, and the rest will be in prison. Just wait.

Trump is trying hard to bring back the sinful and hateful days of America. He's going to appoint someone that would help to destroy Roe vs Wade. That happens, he will for sure be voted out in the next election, along with many repubs. Women are not going to sit down and allow their rights to be stolen.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis, states that prior decisions must be maintained, even if the current court would rule differently. There have only been 10 times in American history in which previous Supreme Court rulings have been overturned. And there is only 2 ways that it can happen:

1. States amend the Constitution. BUT they have to have the approval of 3/4's of state legislatures. That means that 38 state legislatures would have to approve to amend the Constitution.

2. The second way would be if the Supreme Court overrules itself. Which means they would have to hear a different case with the same constitutional issues as the first case, and see the results in a new way, a different light from the first ruling. This normally only happens because of a changing societal or political situations. Usually there has to be some time that has elapsed between the two cases before they do that. Which, with Roe vs Wade, enough time has probably elapsed for them to hear it again. However, there would probably be riots and protests galore because society has not changed enough for them to truly overturn that previous ruling. If anything, it's become even more settled with that first ruling.

They can try to overturn it, but I don't see that happening without extreme backlash from the masses.

13cjk13 said: Trump is trying hard to bring back the sinful and hateful days of America. He's going to appoint someone that would help to destroy Roe vs Wade. That happens, he will for sure be voted out in the next election, along with many repubs. Women are not going to sit down and allow their rights to be stolen.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis, states that prior decisions must be maintained, even if the current court would rule differently. There have only been 10 times in American history in which previous Supreme Court rulings have been overturned. And there is only 2 ways that it can happen:

1. States amend the Constitution. BUT they have to have the approval of 3/4's of state legislatures. That means that 38 state legislatures would have to approve to amend the Constitution.

2. The second way would be if the Supreme Court overrules itself. Which means they would have to hear a different case with the same constitutional issues as the first case, and see the results in a new way, a different light from the first ruling. This normally only happens because of a changing societal or political situations. Usually there has to be some time that has elapsed between the two cases before they do that. Which, with Roe vs Wade, enough time has probably elapsed for them to hear it again. However, there would probably be riots and protests galore because society has not changed enough for them to truly overturn that previous ruling. If anything, it's become even more settled with that first ruling.

They can try to overturn it, but I don't see that happening without extreme backlash from the masses.

The only problem is this administration revels in backlash. The more unsettled the country is, the better for Trumpsky.

His pick will be someone to shake things up. He will demand their loyality. The court has made some pretty disappointing decisions (IMO) these last few weeks.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis, states that prior decisions must be maintained, even if the current court would rule differently. There have only been 10 times in American history in which previous Supreme Court rulings have been overturned. And there is only 2 ways that it can happen:

1. States amend the Constitution. BUT they have to have the approval of 3/4's of state legislatures. That means that 38 state legislatures would have to approve to amend the Constitution.

2. The second way would be if the Supreme Court overrules itself. Which means they would have to hear a different case with the same constitutional issues as the first case, and see the results in a new way, a different light from the first ruling. This normally only happens because of a changing societal or political situations. Usually there has to be some time that has elapsed between the two cases before they do that. Which, with Roe vs Wade, enough time has probably elapsed for them to hear it again. However, there would probably be riots and protests galore because society has not changed enough for them to truly overturn that previous ruling. If anything, it's become even more settled with that first ruling.

They can try to overturn it, but I don't see that happening without extreme backlash from the masses.

The only problem is this administration revels in backlash. The more unsettled the country is, the better for Trumpsky.

His pick will be someone to shake things up. He will demand their loyality. The court has made some pretty disappointing decisions (IMO) these last few weeks.

Oh, I agree. This administration definitely revels in backlash and chaos. Trump thrives on it. But when it comes to SCOTUS, they will have to tread very carefully in trying to overturn any previous rulings. New rulings, I can see them being very biased, but with previous rulings, in order to overturn them, they will, in essence, be saying that the previous ruling was unconstitutional. The American public needs to be able to trust SCOTUS to be fair and just and unbiased. If they become very biased in their rulings, they will lose the trust of the people and it could be dangerous for the republicans if that happens. (And I agree, their recent rulings have not been very good.)

We'll vote these pigs out in November, and the rest will be in prison. Just wait.

Trump is trying hard to bring back the sinful and hateful days of America. He's going to appoint someone that would help to destroy Roe vs Wade. That happens, he will for sure be voted out in the next election, along with many repubs. Women are not going to sit down and allow their rights to be stolen.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be his payment to the so-called "Values Voters" who helped put him into office (Though can you imagine how many abortions Trump paid for for his goumas ....especially since we know he likes to hit it raw...But none of his half witted supporters see the hypocricy involved

We'll vote these pigs out in November, and the rest will be in prison. Just wait.

Trump is trying hard to bring back the sinful and hateful days of America. He's going to appoint someone that would help to destroy Roe vs Wade. That happens, he will for sure be voted out in the next election, along with many repubs. Women are not going to sit down and allow their rights to be stolen.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be his payment to the so-called "Values Voters" who helped put him into office (Though can you imagine how many abortions Trump paid for for his goumas ....especially since we know he likes to hit it raw...But none of his half witted supporters see the hypocricy involved

That’s it. Does anyone really think that he hasn’t paid for any abortions? A serial adulterer who doesn’t use protection. There would be dozens of illegitimate children trying to sell their stories to the press! But we know that even if twenty women came out and claimed that the racist rapist paid for their abortion he would still be forgiven simply because he’s not a democrat.[Edited 6/28/18 2:05am]

CBS News' Ed O'Keefe reports that (Senator Mike) Lee (Utah) said he would accept a nomination to serve on the United States Supreme Court, if asked by Mr. Trump. Lee, 47, has served in the Senate since 2011 and he's clerked twice for Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, once while the justice served on the high court and previously when Alito served on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Abortion is likely to be one of the flash points in the nomination fight. Kennedy has mainly supported abortion rights in his time on the court, and Mr. Trump has made clear he would try to choose justices who want to overturn the landmark abortion rights case of Roe v. Wade. Such a dramatic step may not be immediately likely, but a more conservative court might be more willing to sustain abortion restrictions.

Kavanaugh is bubbling up.

Prominent on the list of possible successors are Judges Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania and William Pryor of Alabama, who was seriously considered for the seat eventually filled by Gorsuch, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who serves on the federal appeals court in Washington.

Kavanaugh is a longtime Washington insider, having served as a law clerk to Kennedy and then as a key member of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's team that produced the report that served as the basis for President Bill Clinton's impeachment. In October, Kavanaugh dissented when his court ruled that a teenage migrant in federal custody should be able to obtain an abortion immediately.